create_project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states this creates a new project, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits such as what permissions are required, whether this operation is reversible, what happens if a project with the same name exists at the location, or what the typical response/outcome looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately concise with two clear sentences that directly address purpose and usage. There's no wasted language or redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines for optimal clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a mutation tool (creating a new project) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, permissions needed, or what the tool returns upon success. For a tool that modifies state in a professional video editing context, more contextual information would be helpful for safe and effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('name' and 'location') well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating with extra semantic context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('creates') and resource ('new Adobe Premiere Pro project'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'open_project' or 'save_project_as', which also involve project handling, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific creation tool is uniquely appropriate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides basic guidance by stating 'Use this when the user wants to start a new video editing project from scratch,' which implies this is for initial project creation rather than opening or saving existing ones. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. 'open_project' for existing projects) or name specific alternatives, leaving some usage context implied rather than fully explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.